NVIDIA Quadro M5000M vs AMD Radeon R9 285

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M5000M and AMD Radeon R9 285 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 11 month(s) later
• Around 6% higher core clock speed: 975 MHz vs 918 MHz
• Around 90% lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 190 Watt
• 4x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6992 vs 6680
• Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 95.613 vs 72.799
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.869 vs 6.369
• Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9399 vs 6474
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 vs 3043
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3339 vs 2782
• Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9399 vs 6474
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 vs 3043
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3339 vs 2782

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 285

• Around 10% higher texture fill rate: 102.8 GTexel / s vs 93.6 GTexel / s
• Around 17% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1,536
• Around 10% better floating-point performance: 3,290 gflops vs 2,995 gflops
• Around 10% higher memory clock speed: 5500 MHz vs 5012 MHz
• Around 26% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 597 vs 475
• Around 10% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.632 vs 1341.18
• Around 10% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 91.954 vs 83.683
• Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 391.399 vs 366.321

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 285

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6992 6680
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	475 597
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	95.613 72.799
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1341.18 1474.632
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6.869 6.369
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	83.683 91.954
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	366.321 391.399
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	9399 6474
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3685 3043
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3339 2782
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	9399 6474
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3685 3043
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3339 2782

Compare specifications (specs)